CCE IN THE NEWS

Source: Syracuse Post-Standard

Some scientists say hydrofracking benefits outweigh risks

BY NICHOLAS MCCREA

Posted: May 2, 2010
Originally Published: May 2, 2010

At a public forum in DeWitt, Syracuse University hydrology professor Don Siegel thought he had presented enough unbiased, scientific information to prove that drilling for natural gas in New York would benefit the state far more than it might hurt.

Then someone in the audience of more than 75 stood up.

“With all due respect, Dr. Siegel,” she said, “it’s not about the science.”

Two months later, Siegel still stews over those words.

The debate should be about the science, he contends, as do two retired SU professors, Bryce Hand and Joe Robinson — who have defended high-volume hydraulic fracturing as a safe method to capture a huge supply of underground natural gas in the Marcellus Shale formation.

But opponents of hydrofracking have “dispensed with science and rely on fear” to turn the public against drilling, Siegel said.

The voices of scientists are being drowned out, the professors said.

“What I’m finding is that no matter how you make the argument about shale bed methane to the local community, they refuse to understand it or refuse to even consider it,” said Siegel, a 62-year-old Syracuse resident.

Hydrofracking opponents like Dereth Glance, executive program director for Citizens Campaign for the Environment, say the gas industry is pushing New York to permit large-scale hydrofracking before the state formulates regulations that will adequately protect the environment.

“It’s about science, it’s about policy, and it’s about precautionary principles,” Glance said.

But Siegel said environmental groups have been doing everything in their power to block what he believes is the best solution to avoid a far worse environmental problem.

For Siegel, who considers himself an environmentalist, climate change is looming large. He said switching to natural gas, the cleanest of the fossil fuels, could help slow its approach by cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 17 percent. It would satiate New York’s energy needs until alternative energy sources become more viable.

Robinson, Siegel and Hand said they are perplexed that people continue to fight wind farms, nuclear power plants, and other forms of alternative energy, while at the same time resisting natural gas drilling.

State Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Pete Grannis said last month in Syracuse that he expects the DEC to issue its revised regulations on hydrofracking later this year and begin issuing permits by 2011.

But state Assemblyman Steve Englebright, a former curator of Geologic Collections at State University at Stony Brook, where he also earned a master’s degree in sedimentology/paleontology, is sponsoring a bill calling for a moratorium on hydrofracking in New York until after the Environmental Protection Agency completes a two-year study on its environmental impact.

Englebright isn’t the only one who wants to slow the natural gas rush.

“Not here. Not now. But not never,” said Tony Ingraffea, a Cornell University engineering professor who specializes in fracture mechanics and wants the state to conduct more research, strengthen its hydrofracking regulations and improve its enforcement capabilities.

Horizontal hydraulic fracturing involves drilling into the shale — at least 2,000 feet below ground — then turning the drill horizontally to continue the well, or several horizontal wells, from the vertical bore. Piping is fed into the well and encased in cement.

After that, the shale is fractured and a fluid mixture of about 99 percent water and sand, and 1 percent chemicals is pumped into the well. The sand holds open the fractures so gas can seep into the well. The chemicals usually act as thickeners and lubricants, allowing the fluid to work its way through the fissures.

The pressure of the thousands of feet of earth and rock above forces the gas and some of the fracking fluid into the well casing, where it’s extracted.

Among the concerns critics most frequently raise are the potential risk to groundwater supplies, the scarring of the natural landscape and degradation of roadways, but some scientists say many of those concerns have been sensationalized.

Opponents point to Dimock, Pa., a town 100 miles south of Syracuse, where hydrofracking is occurring. Recently, , the Department of Environmental Protection ordered Cabot Oil and Gas Corp. to pay fines and plug three wells that the DEP believes led to methane contaminating the drinking water of 14 Dimock homes. Cabot must also install permanent water treatment systems at each of those homes.”

Siegel, Hand and Robinson, a petroleum geologist, acknowledge that high-volume hydrofracking is not without risks.

But Hand, a sedimentologist who taught for 30 years at SU before retiring in 1999, said many of the concerns are being “overblown.”

“In every basin, there might be one or two accidents out of tens of thousands of wells,” Siegel said. He guessed that Cabot made a mistake when pumping the concrete that surrounds the well piping, allowing gas to seep up outside the casing and eventually travel into the 14 homes’ water supply.

However, he said he has not been able to find any data from Pennsylvania DEP about the water contamination or drilling mishap, which he would like the independent scientific community to be able to evaluate for itself.

He said Pennsylvania DEP’s reaction to this “atypical, rare” mishap should be encouraging to New York, as it will push other companies to not repeat Cabot’s mistakes and will improve the drilling process.Some scientists say New York should take great care and time before allowing extensive drilling.

During an April 22 Thursday Morning Roundtable session, Bruce Selleck, professor of geology at Colgate University, said he was “comforted” by the state’s caution in issuing drilling permits. He said the state should learn from drilling that’s happening in other places.

“In a way, New York is very lucky that Pennsylvania has been bleeding on the cutting edge of technology development for hydrofracking,” Selleck said.

Selleck suggested that before New York issues permits for drilling throughout the state, it should use an isolated area of the Southern Tier. as a testing ground. That would let the state assess the effects on the local environment.

Hand, Siegel and Robinson say some hydrofracking opponents are exaggerating the risk to water supplies posed by chemical additives that make up around 1 percent of the fracking fluids.

The professors said these chemicals range from common food additives to acids. The additives used vary from well to well. Robinson said the chemicals are so diluted that they wouldn’t pose a significant risk, and many of them dissolve underground and become harmless before gas companies bring fluids back to the surface.

Critics argue that since the fluids are used in such high volumes, usually a few million gallons per well, the chemicals can still be harmful.

Hydrofracking opponents also say the environment could be damaged by the high salt content in the fluid that flows back up the well after the drilling process. This flowback fluid is stored in surface pits at the well sites until it can be disposed of or reused in a new well.

A tear in the liners of these pits might lead to spills that find their way into local water supplies, causing the salt content to rise to unacceptable levels, Siegel acknowledged.

Siegel said the state lacks facilities to treat the saline flowback fluids. These facilities would need to be set up, or the state would need to allow the fluids to be stored in deep injection wells.

The SU professors agree that hydrofracking needs to be heavily regulated and that the DEC needs more staff to do this effectively.

“We really don’t have to be in any enormous rush,” said Hand, who said that even though he felt the concerns were overblown, he was comfortable with the state taking its time. “The gas will still be there, it’ll always be there, until we get it out.”